1162994 Ont. Inc. v. Bakker, (2004) 184 O.A.C. 157 (CA)

• Judge: McMurtry, C.J.O.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 02, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2004), 184 O.A.C. 157 (CA)

1162994 Ont. Inc. v. Bakker (2004), 184 O.A.C. 157 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.029

1162994 Ontario Inc., Landlord (respondent in appeal) v. Bakker, Tim et al., Tenants (appellant in appeal)

(M30965 (C40655))

Indexed As: 1162994 Ontario Inc. v. Bakker et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

McMurtry, C.J.O.

March 4, 2004.

Summary:

Four tenants leased a house. Three of them moved. The remaining tenant (Holmes) ceased paying rent and was $8,000 in arrears. The landlord applied to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to recover the arrears as against the four tenants. The Tribunal made an order against Holmes alone for payment of the arrears. The landlord appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court held that judgment for arrears should be granted against all four tenants. One of the tenants obtained leave to appeal. The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) brought a motion seeking to intervene in the appeal as a friend of the court.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per McMurtry, C.J.O., granted ACTO leave to intervene as a friend of the court on conditions, which included that ACTO would take the record as it was and would not be permitted to adduce further material.

Practice - Topic 685

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - On appeal - A tenant obtained leave to appeal from a decision of the Divisional Court which allowed an appeal from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal - The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario sought to intervene in the appeal as a friend of the court - The respondent argued that Civil Procedure Rule 13, which provided for intervention, did not apply to proceedings under the Tenant Protection Act - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per McMurtry, C.J.O., held that the Tenant Protection Act did not articulate the procedure to be followed on appeal and the Rules of Civil Procedure therefore applied to appeals originating from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal - The court also rejected the respondent's submission that the conduct of an appeal was governed exclusively by rule 61, which made no provision for intervention - Rule 61 did not address all procedural and substantive matters ancillary to the conduct of an appeal - Further, other rules explicitly dealt with matters relevant to the conduct of appeals and rule 13.03(2) explicitly provided for intervention in the Court of Appeal - See paragraph 4.

Practice - Topic 687

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Amicus curiae - The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario sought to intervene in an appeal as a friend of the court - The respondent argued that intervention should be denied based on the decision in Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General) (Ont. C.A.) which stated that intervention in private litigation should be carefully scrutinized in order to ensure that it did not unnecessarily complicate the litigation or unduly add to the parties' expenses - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per McMurtry, C.J.O., held that the private nature of a case was only one matter to be considered in determining whether intervention should be granted - Also to be considered were the issues that arose and the likelihood that the proposed intervenor could make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice to the parties - See paragraph 5.

Practice - Topic 687

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Amicus curiae - Four tenants leased a house - Three of them moved - The remaining tenant (Holmes) ceased paying rent and was $8,000 in arrears - The landlord applied to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to recover the arrears as against the four tenants - The Tribunal made an order against Holmes alone for payment of the arrears - The landlord appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court held that judgment for arrears should be granted against all four tenants - One of the tenants obtained leave to appeal - The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) sought to intervene in the appeal as a friend of the court - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per McMurtry, C.J.O., granted ACTO leave to intervene as a friend of the court - Although the litigation was substantially private in nature, it could have a broader impact - ACTO could assist the court in understanding the dimensions of the legal issues that would arise - In recognition of the private nature of the litigation and the need to avoid unnecessarily complicating issues before the court, or unduly adding to the respondent's costs, ACTO would not be permitted to adduce further material - See paragraphs 7 to 9.

Cases Noticed:

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General) (2001), 147 O.A.C. 355 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

Childs v. Desormeaux et al. (2003), 177 O.A.C. 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada (1990), 74 O.R.(2d) 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 13, rule 61 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Bruce M.R. Best, for the moving party/intervenor, The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario;

Antonin I. Probetic, for the respondent/appellant in appeal;

Robert A. Haas, for the respondent/respondent in appeal.

This motion was heard on March 2, 2004, before McMurtry, C.J.O., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of McMurtry, C.J.O., was released on March 4, 2004.